AIBU to think a £2m homeowner should pay mansion tax?

[LadyJos]

Anyone read the Telegraph Article about the 93 year-old man paying mansion tax on his £2m Richmond Home he bought for £15,000? AIBU but isn't £15,000 to £2m a fairly good return over 60 years, and shouldn't he pay some tax at the end? I can't help thinking since the home is mortgage-free, he has options here to pay the £2500 a year...
‘I’m a 91-year-old veteran about to be dragged into mansion tax. This is wrong’
www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/house-prices/91-year-old-about-dragged-into-mansion-tax/

The fairly obvious logical failure is that the asset rich cash poor don't have any money in their pockets, no matter whether they are spending it on property taxes or cruises.

There is an argument that forcing someone to partially liquidate an asset to pay taxes because they have no current liquidity would actually drive the economy, because if someone genuinely had no money they would probably liquidate more in order to afford a few extras as well as the tax. Plus there is the tax being spent into the economy, plus the economic activity associated with the liquidation process.

What a ridiculous comment - no one from about 1990 onwards had the opportunity to buy an affordable property that would increase so much in value!

The privileged piousness on threads like this is laughable.

Last time I checked, avarice and gluttony were two of those sins 🤷🏻‍♂️

But there is much less of a disparity between rich and poor than you realise. Looking at earnings (I don’t have the numbers for assets) pre tax and benefits, the top 20% earn twelve times more than the bottom 20%. After tax and benefits the top 20% only receive three times more than the bottom 20%. Are you proposing that everyone gets exactly the same? I would definitely be quitting my long hours, high stress job if that happened.

My source is the ONS data linked in my previous post.

People earning well tend to make smart investments...

Not in my experience.

Wow how jealous of you, you’d see an elderly man sell his home so he could pay tax sooner, fuck me, that’s bad.

It's what some people are like.

He doesn’t need to sell it, or are we expected to believe he’s surviving on a basic state pension?

Oh look - someone else on the "jealous" bandwagon

Newsflash - wanting someone to pay their share when they CLEARLY have the means to pay it is NOT jealousy. We are also not "mean girls" in case you were planning on using that next.

Ah yes their magical share which is always bigger than everyone's elses. What do you socialists do when you run out of other people's money?

Candidly, it’s bigger than your share.

If we need to raise funds, why don’t we start with healthy and able adults who are able to work, and therefore contribute to the tax take, but choose not to.

All of those adults.

Why do we need to "raise funds" if we already have a massive tax burden?

Successive governments making terrible financial choices, spending money irresponsibly (see Covid..) and the huge national debt.

I would assume you knew that.

But if we’d like to focus on taking some of the burden off the broadest shoulders, surely the sensible place to start is by focussing on those who don’t carry any of the tax burden at all. Encourage them to get into work, share the load and start contributing at all.

Welfare first, if we must. But optionally unemployed next IMO.

I really don’t understand your analogy. He doesn’t physically have 2million since he is living in the home 🫠 yes his property may be worth that, but only once its sold - probably when he dies, therefore he doesn’t see that gain anyway.

My net worth is a lot under £2m (which is only his house value) My house is worth? 450k ish

My salary is 80k, and I dont tax avoid, so I am indeed paying with my money

But he has an asset he can realise. I dont need to go through the options again.

And if he doesnt want to have equity release then maybe his children can help him out?

Ok, so using your logic, I would like to test how far it goes.

You seem pretty adamant that it's morally acceptable for the elderly man to be forced to pay this tax for no other reason than he privately owns an expensive house.

What about people in expensive social housing? They are costing the state an enormous amount of money by occupying homes worth so much and tying up public money in this way There are 110 council homes worth over £2 million. Surely these people should be forced to move and sell. In fact surely everyone in social homes over an even lower threshold should be forced to sell following the same logic. Maybe we should set the threshold at anywhere above the national average home value? Afterall you have no sympathy for people in expensive areas and think they can simply move to a cheaper area to liquidate their asset. Why doesn't this work with social housing?

He literally says in the article that they have a pension and investments. He says they won't be left destitute by having to pay. So he doesn't have 2 million in cash but does have enough income via a pension to pay. It's fine if people still think it's unfair, but it's completely dishonest to pretend that he is forced with having to sell his house.

An easier solution surely would be that the owners of those properties pay the same tax on them that the elderly man does.

@Itchthescratch ”What about people in expensive social housing”

They don’t own the asset.

They're social housing so people get non means tested lifetime tenancies on super expensive homes. This is worth up to £1.4 million and all at the expense of the tax payer. They never own the house though so aren't liable to the tax.

Lots of people claim lifetime tenancies shouldn't be means tested because otherwise these houses will never become people's homes if they know that if they earn over a certain amount they wouldn't be eligible anymore. Funny how this argument about houses becoming homes doesn't seem to apply to private home owners though isn't it? Those that actually finance the whole cost of living in these houses themselves rather than relying on the state

There are always a few scroungers, yes, but the majority of people who live in social housing and who are receiving benefits absolutely need to. Life circumstances can change in an instant, and it's important for a stable society to have that safety net. For all of us.

If you can afford to live in a house worth 2M you've experienced a rare level of privilege in your life - and contributing your fair share should be something you don't begrudge - in order to preserve that stable society.

Having said that - there is a huge amount of hidden wealth linked to the UK - both on and offshore - this is something that needs to be addressed with global tax laws.

They don't need to if they have a lifetime tenancy. How many people would choose to own an asset with all the risks and cost of ownership if they could have the same house as SH with the security of a lifetime tenancy? I certainly would plump for this option if I was eligible

People need to live in social housing worth over £2 million. Why do they need this but private owners can just move to a cheaper area?